PDA

View Full Version : Call of Dooty: Modern Warfare 3



Pages : 1 [2]

StankBacon
November 9th, 2011, 03:45 AM
finished the single player in a few hours, was good.

neuro
November 9th, 2011, 04:07 AM
except for the 'few hours' part?

Spartan094
November 9th, 2011, 05:53 AM
Good thing I didn't waste a penny. Also on another note yesterday Activision said the next Call of Duty will come out next year....

:mech3:

but it wasn't that surprising now was it

nuttyyayap
November 9th, 2011, 06:34 AM
So is the game worth buying or should I just save my money?

Kornman00
November 9th, 2011, 07:55 AM
Also on another note yesterday Activision said the next Call of Duty will come out next year....
:fail:, where was this said

=sw=warlord
November 9th, 2011, 07:59 AM
:fail:, where was this said
Kotick has announced it, it was on Kotaku.

Limited
November 9th, 2011, 01:26 PM
If someone showed me MW2 and MW3 videos, I wouldnt be able to tell them apart. I never played Black Ops, hense why the menu system is so vivid in my mind.

Apparently MW3 doesnt have a FOV setting on PC, and to play in a rank server (unlock weapons and all those goodies) you have to play matchmaking, which is NOT on a dedicated server...wtf?

MW3 is a step down from Black ops.

TVTyrant
November 9th, 2011, 01:28 PM
2011 (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=2011)
bad (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=bad)
bad posting (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=bad+posting)
bf3 (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=bf3)
bobby wants to rule the world (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=bobby+wants+to+rule+the+world)
generic gun colors (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=generic+gun+colors)
jcap happy (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=jcap+happy)
long ranged shotguns (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=long+ranged+shotguns)
money whores (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=money+whores)
monthly fee (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=monthly+fee)
odx hates animations (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=odx+hates+animations)
shitdick (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=shitdick)
waste (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=waste)
welfare (http://www.modacity.net/forums/tags.php?tag=welfare)

Gotta love Modacity tags.

Amit
November 9th, 2011, 02:45 PM
If someone showed me MW2 and MW3 videos, I wouldnt be able to tell them apart. I never played Black Ops, hense why the menu system is so vivid in my mind.

Apparently MW3 doesnt have a FOV setting on PC, and to play in a rank server (unlock weapons and all those goodies) you have to play matchmaking, which is NOT on a dedicated server...wtf?

MW3 is a step down from Black ops.

Yeah and the fanboys don't seem to realize that.

MXC
November 9th, 2011, 03:01 PM
Gotta love Modacity tags.

I'm surprised "bf3" doesn't give me the Battlefield 3 thread.

jcap
November 9th, 2011, 08:05 PM
Spoilers ahead lalalallalalalallalalalalla lalallalalalla buffer for front page lalalallalallalalalala

Ok, I was just thinking of something. Dee was playing campaign again after he gave it up because the NYC levels were shit (like I said in my review). When he got to the airplane level, all of a sudden he was like, "jcap, holy shit !!!! . . . [this level] was syk dope." I thought this level was pretty awesome too, and it basically puts all of the events of MW3 into motion. Essentially, it was the beginning of the game. So, then I thought, wouldn't this have been the proper way to start the game?

Like, if it was me who was directing this game, I probably would have started the game with a prologue similar to the first game (Crew Expendable). The prologue would be "Turbulence." Since the character you are playing as dies at the end of the mission, I personally think it would have been the perfect way to start the game. Then I would have followed the airplane level with the current opening sequence, where it shows the main character being brought to the doctor, followed by "Persona Non Grata" (the Africa level), then followed by "Back on the Grid."

Most importantly, the NYC levels are nowhere to be found, because they are the most asinine bullshit in the game. Also, it would reduce the amount of broken up story telling.

DEElekgolo
November 9th, 2011, 08:06 PM
Shit was WACK.
I won't be playing multiplayer. I like cod for its campaign.

Warsaw
November 9th, 2011, 08:49 PM
Brother bought it. Multiplayer is literally the same as MW2. Returning tomorrow.

ODX
November 9th, 2011, 08:50 PM
I'm in the tags! :D
...no seriously, game is a fucking bust because I feel like I'm playing the same thing unless I have all new animations to look at (which I don't).

Oh wait, it IS the same thing either way! Yeah, I'm passing up on this. I played it at a friends house and I honestly couldn't discern much difference from MW2 aside from the few little additions like the different killstreak packages or whatever.

Amit
November 9th, 2011, 09:02 PM
It honestly is the same thing:

http://cdn.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/modern-warfare-3-is-modern-warfare-2.png

jcap
November 9th, 2011, 09:06 PM
I hear MP is substantially less retarded than MW2 though.

Warsaw
November 9th, 2011, 09:09 PM
Nope.avi

It is still Call of Duty: UMP Warfare 2.

t3h m00kz
November 9th, 2011, 09:40 PM
I feel like I'm playing the same thing unless I have all new animations

ouch.. sorry to hear visual flare is what sells a game for you.



I hear this game is having terrible user reviews... any idea what that's all about?

Pooky
November 9th, 2011, 09:54 PM
I hear this game is having terrible user reviews... any idea what that's all about?

Perhaps the general populace is finally waking up to the notion that these games are just the same shit copy-pasted every year with none of the flaws, either gameplay or engine wise fixed.

I really don't understand why it's so hard for COD developers to not have that one insanely overpowered gun in their game. CoD 4 had the M16, WaW had the MP40, MW2 had the UMP, Blops had the FAMAS. What is it this time?

Warsaw
November 9th, 2011, 09:57 PM
Speaking of visuals, the only difference I noticed from MW2 was that the smoke trail from RPG rounds doesn't look like a long string of 2D sprites and actually looks somewhat like smoke. I'm something of a stickler for details, and if that's the only tangible thing I noticed, then they were lying out their ass with the whole "this engine is a Porsche" gig.

StankBacon
November 9th, 2011, 10:45 PM
except for the 'few hours' part?

yah it only took like 5 hours to beat, and that was with a few smoke breaks.

paladin
November 9th, 2011, 11:03 PM
This game is magic...

Amit
November 10th, 2011, 01:42 AM
I was wondering when you'd jump in and start trolling this thread.

TeeKup
November 10th, 2011, 09:56 AM
No its a porche, just the same damn one from a few years ago.

paladin
November 10th, 2011, 10:50 AM
I was wondering when you'd jump in and start trolling this thread.

I blame Korn, he made me do it

paladin
November 10th, 2011, 12:02 PM
Ill just leave this here

MW3 Breaks Shatters Record, 10 Million Units Day One (http://www.lazygamer.net/xbox-360/modern-warfare-3-sells-nearly-10-million-copies-on-day-one/)

ThePlague
November 10th, 2011, 12:07 PM
^Cool story.

paladin
November 10th, 2011, 01:49 PM
right Guys?

right?

Guys?

Cortexian
November 10th, 2011, 02:00 PM
This is me not caring:

Candlejac-

Spartan094
November 10th, 2011, 02:10 PM
Meh, I wonder how many NEW COD players bought it versus the old cod players in copies sold.

Amit
November 10th, 2011, 04:36 PM
Ill just leave this here

MW3 Breaks Shatters Record, 10 Million Units Day One (http://www.lazygamer.net/xbox-360/modern-warfare-3-sells-nearly-10-million-copies-on-day-one/)

If anyone expected anything less, they'd be just as retarded as the people who bought the game.

Disaster
November 10th, 2011, 04:56 PM
The game really is a let down (what else can you expect from Activision though?). Waste of money. It is exactly the same as MW2, minus good map design. I will most likely be trading it in for Halo Anniversary.

Nero
November 10th, 2011, 05:11 PM
If anyone expected anything less, they'd be just as retarded as the people who bought the game.
Damn, that would mean a lot of american teens bought it.

Donut
November 10th, 2011, 05:15 PM
^ but not emma watson, right? :v:

Nero
November 10th, 2011, 05:20 PM
Back off.
http://c.cslacker.com/2326l.jpg

Donut
November 10th, 2011, 05:37 PM
its true :saddowns:

ODX
November 10th, 2011, 05:42 PM
Ill just leave this here

MW3 Breaks Shatters Record, 10 Million Units Day One (http://www.lazygamer.net/xbox-360/modern-warfare-3-sells-nearly-10-million-copies-on-day-one/)HL3 says hi (IF IT EVER FUCKING SHOWS UP!!!! D: )

Pooky
November 10th, 2011, 05:53 PM
The game really is a let down (what else can you expect from Activision though?). Waste of money. It is exactly the same as MW2, minus good map design. I will most likely be trading it in for Halo Anniversary.

MW2 had atrocious map design. I'd go as far as to say the maps were the worst thing about the game.

Disaster
November 10th, 2011, 06:24 PM
MW2 had atrocious map design. I'd go as far as to say the maps were the worst thing about the game.
MW3 map design is even worse. :ohdear:

Champ
November 10th, 2011, 06:50 PM
This is probably the most honest review you're going to get of this game. http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/call-of-duty-2011-project/1212006p1.html

Disaster
November 10th, 2011, 07:01 PM
"Each is a masterfully designed labyrinth tailor-made to satisfy a certain style of gameplay;"

Damn right they are labyrinths. The maps are so convoluted and close quartered; all of them.

Amit
November 11th, 2011, 12:32 AM
The game really is a let down (what else can you expect from Activision though?). Waste of money. It is exactly the same as MW2, minus good map design. I will most likely be trading it in for Halo Anniversary.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. MW2 and good map design? There are camp spots littered everywhere on most of the maps, Scrapyard being the exception.


This is probably the most honest review you're going to get of this game. http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/call-of-duty-2011-project/1212006p1.html

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2011/11/10/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-review/1
(http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2011/11/10/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-review/1)
BAM.

The first two paragraphs on the 2nd page of the gamespy article are hilarious, though.

TeeKup
November 11th, 2011, 06:32 AM
Played a little bit of campaign and a lot of spec ops at a friends house. It's actually pretty fun so far.

=sw=warlord
November 11th, 2011, 07:43 AM
http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/224831/modern-warfare-3-boss-asks-fans-to-help-games-suspiciously-low-user-scores/

M (http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/224831/modern-warfare-3-boss-asks-fans-to-help-games-suspiciously-low-user-scores/)y rebuttal (http://trololololololololololo.com/)

Amit
November 11th, 2011, 09:12 AM
Scumbag IW devs. Bastards ARE SO FUCKING GREEDY

=sw=warlord
November 11th, 2011, 10:04 AM
Scumbag IW devs. Bastards ARE SO FUCKING GREEDY

Way to go reading the article, it was the CEO of Sledgehammer not IW.

http://www.lameorgame.com/img/201111/caption7839.jpg
http://www.lameorgame.com/view.cfm?cid=7839

Amit
November 11th, 2011, 10:21 AM
Way to go reading the article, it was the CEO of Sledgehammer not IW.

Who do you think put them up to it? You think Rob Bowling and the IW devs aren't thinking the same thing? If they say anything half as controversial, they'll get hit harder.

=sw=warlord
November 11th, 2011, 10:32 AM
Who do you think put them up to it? You think Rob Bowling and the IW devs aren't thinking the same thing? If they say anything half as controversial, they'll get hit harder.
I would imagine it would be Activision who put them up to it.
I honestly doubt the CEO of one studio allowing someone like Bowling who works at a different studio telling him what to do.
Especially with a face like his.
See above^.

ODX
November 11th, 2011, 03:41 PM
I would think they're all too busy drowning in money to give a shit.

Pooky
November 11th, 2011, 06:06 PM
I doubt there's anything truly suspicious about the score. If MW3 continues the same trend of increasing shittiness that CoD has been following since WaW, I think it's fully deserved.

TeeKup
November 14th, 2011, 05:03 PM
Beat the campaign.
was REALLY sad when Soap died. Been a while since Call of Duty made me feel sad. Probably because Soap is a badass...and the only mildly attractive character in this series.

Donut
November 14th, 2011, 05:11 PM
^ i love how this forum shows the text inside spoilers on the main page.

Champ
November 14th, 2011, 07:14 PM
I just tried to play the 360 version and everything was playing like shit. Anyone having this problem?

NullZero
November 14th, 2011, 10:27 PM
You sure it wasn't just the game itself.

Amit
November 15th, 2011, 12:46 AM
I should think that it would play like butter on the 360 since that is the main platform it was developed for. Plays like butter on PC, too. Has to be the disc itself.

Mr Buckshot
November 15th, 2011, 11:58 AM
I just tried to play the 360 version and everything was playing like shit. Anyone having this problem?

Install it to your HDD so that you only have to insert the disc for one-time authentication, similar to old school PC gaming.

It cuts down on wear-and-tear of both the disc and the drive.

Amit
November 15th, 2011, 01:07 PM
Heh, no Elite for PC players even after Activision said there would be. They "delayed" it right after launch.

Mr Buckshot
November 16th, 2011, 09:13 AM
Heh, no Elite for PC players even after Activision said there would be. They "delayed" it right after launch.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/16/activision-on-cod-elite-pc-comment-we-misspoke/

regardless, how many PC gamers actually care? From the start, I never saw any gains from using COD Elite. I don't have a problem with them just scrapping the Elite plan and putting that manpower into creating a quality game for once.

Amit
November 16th, 2011, 11:02 AM
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/16/activision-on-cod-elite-pc-comment-we-misspoke/

regardless, how many PC gamers actually care? From the start, I never saw any gains from using COD Elite. I don't have a problem with them just scrapping the Elite plan and putting that manpower into creating a quality game for once.

They didn't create anything. This is basically MW2 with new skins. The only thing that is even mildly interesting is the Spec Ops mode. I enjoyed that for a few hours. Campaign ending felt anti-climatic too. Recycling a quality item does not equal creating a quality item. MW2 had quality production. It looked great, but it just played bad. Gameplay design choices were retarded and that is the case with MW3, as well.

jcap
November 16th, 2011, 01:26 PM
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/16/activision-on-cod-elite-pc-comment-we-misspoke/

regardless, how many PC gamers actually care? From the start, I never saw any gains from using COD Elite. I don't have a problem with them just scrapping the Elite plan and putting that manpower into creating a quality game for once.
Yeah, ELITE doesn't really offer anything substantial, especially to PC communities. On consoles, it's cool because there's no other alternatives for its features, like recording. However, on the PC we have programs such as FRAPS that record in higher quality and for longer durations. The only "benefit" I see is that ELITE includes the DLC maps in your subscription, but if the sub costs $50/yr and the two map packs cost $30 TOTAL, you aren't saving anything.

Amit
November 16th, 2011, 03:43 PM
The only "benefit" I see is that ELITE includes the DLC maps in your subscription, but if the sub costs $50/yr and the two map packs cost $30 TOTAL, you aren't saving anything.

Monthly DLC: http://www.callofduty.com/elite/whats-included

(http://www.callofduty.com/elite/whats-included)"Monthly, throughout the 9 month season." 9 map packs at $15 each for non "hardcore" CoD players. Disgusting.

jcap
November 16th, 2011, 04:17 PM
What.

Amit
November 16th, 2011, 05:43 PM
http://www.adiumxtras.com/images/thumbs/troll_icons_2_28891_7697_thumb.png
Problem?

Donut
November 16th, 2011, 05:57 PM
un fucking believable. :smithicide:

ODX
November 16th, 2011, 06:22 PM
This is a joke, right?


...Right?

jcap
November 16th, 2011, 06:47 PM
I'm betting that they'll release like one new map per month that isn't available to anyone but the ELITE subscribers, then after 4 or 5 are released, they will group them together in a $15 map pack for everyone else. It rewards those "hardcore players" who subscribe because they can get to play early without screwing everyone else.

Kornman00
November 16th, 2011, 07:00 PM
The only people who should see this as a problem are those who actually like the game mod :mech2:

Champ
November 16th, 2011, 07:01 PM
I'm betting they'll release the maps to everyone and those who premium elite subscribers get the maps for free, and those who are not have to pay..

Warsaw
November 16th, 2011, 07:08 PM
The only people who should see this as a problem are those who actually like the game mod :mech2:

Someone should legitimately mod CoD4 into MW2 and 3.

Spartan094
November 16th, 2011, 07:35 PM
MW3? It must feel like I'm playing a game from 2007!!!

Warsaw
November 16th, 2011, 08:06 PM
2007 called, it wants its respect back:

http://s3-llnw-screenshots.wegame.com/3202579008914375/3202579008914375_l.jpg

TVTyrant
November 16th, 2011, 08:09 PM
CryTek COD mod?

Amit
November 16th, 2011, 08:15 PM
The only people who should see this as a problem are those who actually like the game mod :mech2:

This is true.


Someone should legitimately mod CoD4 into MW2 and 3.

People have already done the MP. I've played on COD4 servers that completely revamped everything to be MW2-style, including perks and maps, but the weapon balancing is better and maps still have their horrible design flaws. I forget how the killstreaks work, though. It must have been easy enough to do. Just pull the models and skins from MW2 and pop them into the COD4 mod tools.

Warsaw
November 16th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Hahaha, that's awesome. All you really need to do is buy CoD4 then, which is the only Modern Warfare worth buying anyways!


CryTek COD mod?

No, I was just pointing out that MW3 looks and plays like shit even by 2007 standards.

paladin
November 16th, 2011, 09:03 PM
Im pretty sure its 15 maps, not 15 map packs...

Also,

Finished MW 3's campaign a few hours ago. From start to finish, it blows BF 3's campaign away. The only mission I didn't like was the Russian airplane thing, Harkov holding a pistol with one hand looks goofy to the point that I thought I was playing a Treyarch game.
Other than that, much better than BF 3. Like I've always been saying, wasted potential on DICE's part.
IW makes sure you pretty much got all your bases covered before you play online. You get to use Predator missiles, the AC130 and a Juggernaut. BF 3 gives you a tank and leaves you hanging. Not only that, but they shove it in your face with on-rails jet action.

Not sure about length, but I felt the MW 3 campaign was bigger. They may be on par though.
BF 3's Achievements are somewhat entertaining, but feel like a chore at times. There's one I really did enjoy though, which was taking out the 4 lights. Having to take into account that the bullets travel more distance and changing your shot accordingly is pretty awesome.
If MW 3 is anything like MW and MW 3, we have our winner.

Also, I did not care for the characters in BF 3 one bit. MW 3 wins again. Obviously IW have a much easier time establishing that connection because this is a trilogy and this is the last game, but BF 3 doesn't even lay foundations. You're this American guy, then you're this Russian guy.
Switch back and forth, but they're both pretty useless.

Another big issue in BF 3 is how the QTEs throw you off. MW, MW 2 and MW 3 have on-rails sections that allow you to think that you're in control, very small touches and stuff like that. Being able to move the camera around when your character is interacting with someone/something is a big plus. One button presses to plant C4, to breach a room or to pick up an NPC that you're guiding yourself, instead of pushing A 4 times to help out a guy that the AI decides where to take... You feel like you're in control. BF 3 feels rigid and uninspired. They don't even pretend to let you control the character. Both final missions have the same objective and QTEs, but MW 3 manages to do it right and BF 3 doesn't.

If BF 3 had a SP on par with MW 3, I would love it do death. It doesn't, and if DICE doesn't learn, it will never have it.

For Online though, hands-down BF 3. There's not even a contest.

Warsaw
November 16th, 2011, 09:14 PM
I agree, actually. The BF3 campaign plays like a frustrating Rainbow Six campaign with less time in the actual playable segments. DICE should have stuck to the Bad Company 1 formula for campaign, they had something there. They are trying too hard to be Call of Duty with BF3.

jcap
November 16th, 2011, 09:40 PM
Someone should legitimately mod CoD4 into MW2 and 3.

Many MW2 SP maps were converted into MW1 maps for multiplayer. They actually look fun. Also, they look literally identical to MW2 (because it's the same fucking engine with literally zero improvements).

Mr Buckshot
November 16th, 2011, 09:57 PM
I was always against the idea of trying to make a "proper" SP campaign for BF3.

BF2 just put you into 16-player multiplayer maps with AI - along with opportunities to practice flying aircraft. I would have much preferred that instead.

I played about 5 minutes of BF3's campaign and got bored. I did stay focused long enough to play MW3's campaign from start to finish though.

Amit
November 16th, 2011, 10:18 PM
Im pretty sure its 15 maps, not 15 map packs...

Now that seems more logical.



Also,

Finished MW 3's campaign a few hours ago. From start to finish, it blows BF 3's campaign away. The only mission I didn't like was the Russian airplane thing, Harkov holding a pistol with one hand looks goofy to the point that I thought I was playing a Treyarch game.
Other than that, much better than BF 3. Like I've always been saying, wasted potential on DICE's part.
IW makes sure you pretty much got all your bases covered before you play online. You get to use Predator missiles, the AC130 and a Juggernaut. BF 3 gives you a tank and leaves you hanging. Not only that, but they shove it in your face with on-rails jet action.

Not sure about length, but I felt the MW 3 campaign was bigger. They may be on par though.
BF 3's Achievements are somewhat entertaining, but feel like a chore at times. There's one I really did enjoy though, which was taking out the 4 lights. Having to take into account that the bullets travel more distance and changing your shot accordingly is pretty awesome.
If MW 3 is anything like MW and MW 3, we have our winner.

Also, I did not care for the characters in BF 3 one bit. MW 3 wins again. Obviously IW have a much easier time establishing that connection because this is a trilogy and this is the last game, but BF 3 doesn't even lay foundations. You're this American guy, then you're this Russian guy.
Switch back and forth, but they're both pretty useless.

Another big issue in BF 3 is how the QTEs throw you off. MW, MW 2 and MW 3 have on-rails sections that allow you to think that you're in control, very small touches and stuff like that. Being able to move the camera around when your character is interacting with someone/something is a big plus. One button presses to plant C4, to breach a room or to pick up an NPC that you're guiding yourself, instead of pushing A 4 times to help out a guy that the AI decides where to take... You feel like you're in control. BF 3 feels rigid and uninspired. They don't even pretend to let you control the character. Both final missions have the same objective and QTEs, but MW 3 manages to do it right and BF 3 doesn't.

If BF 3 had a SP on par with MW 3, I would love it do death. It doesn't, and if DICE doesn't learn, it will never have it.

For Online though, hands-down BF 3. There's not even a contest.

Basically, yeah. I dunno, I managed to get into the characters and I always knew who was with me. I was starting to like Campo and then, well...

BF3 started to pick up in the later missions but then we get that dead end sort of ending. The last mission was literally just "press this, press that, you missed so you die."

WTF? MW3's ending felt anti-climatic to me, but it was still better by a longshot. A lot of the scenes in MW3 felt cool. That Hamburg insertion looked cool at first, but then became a pain in the ass getting up the beachhead. The Berlin mission was simply awesome. Retarded, but awesome. I also hated how IW and Sledgehammer tried to make an emotional game, but they failed to convey emotion for anyone that wasn't a leading character. When the building collapses in Berlin, there are soldiers still alive and holding wounds. I saw a soldier holding his eye. I get that part, but I don't get that Sandman just disregards them like they are insignificant. At least get them to the shelter of the building before running off.

Warsaw
November 16th, 2011, 10:37 PM
@Buckshot: That's because BF3 is essentially one giant cutscene, with the occasional reminder that it is a game and not a movie.

Amit
December 23rd, 2011, 03:13 PM
X-Posted in the Youtube thread:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKz77XH3OeI

DarkHalo003
December 23rd, 2011, 03:16 PM
Only goes to show how retarded the CoD gameplay is. At least, that's how I see it.

Spartan094
December 23rd, 2011, 03:54 PM
And my friends tell me to buy this game. :laughingwhores:

Also more tags for this thread :realsmug:

TVTyrant
December 23rd, 2011, 05:10 PM
dem tags

Cortexian
December 24th, 2011, 01:22 AM
Been like that since CoD4 really... Good to see that some other people are finally figuring it out.

Pooky
December 24th, 2011, 09:09 AM
He's also using the M16, which has been a massively overpowered piece of shit since CoD 4 :D

Sanctus
January 22nd, 2012, 10:03 PM
TeeKup and I were just playing survival on Interchange and I discovered that the stupid Elite Run is back! I thought tears were going to start rolling down my face I was laughing so hard.

Pooky
January 23rd, 2012, 12:20 AM
http://i.imgur.com/C2zlh.jpg

he means this btw

Amit
January 23rd, 2012, 01:12 AM
Gay game is gay. Call of Duty is for fags. Real men play Battlefield.

Mr Buckshot
January 23rd, 2012, 08:15 PM
Gay game is gay. Call of Duty is for fags. Real men play Battlefield.

+REP, seconded.

rossmum
January 23rd, 2012, 08:24 PM
good cod games: 1, united offensive, 2, maybe 4. every other one is an awful piece of shit.

Pooky
January 23rd, 2012, 09:07 PM
CoD 4 is the best CoD.

And yes I played 1, 2, and UO.

Agreed that all the other ones are shit though.

Sanctus
January 23rd, 2012, 10:41 PM
Gay game is gay. Call of Duty is for fags. Real men play Battlefield.

I'd plus rep you if we still did that.

Cortexian
January 24th, 2012, 12:12 AM
Gay game is gay. Call of Duty is for fags. Real men play Battlefield.
>>I have entered your account

>>Section located:
>Reputation

>>Reputation level:
>1225

>>Increasing value:
>1700

>>Saving

Warsaw
January 24th, 2012, 01:04 AM
Gay game is gay. Call of Duty is for fags. Real men play Battlefield Red Orchestra.

Fixed that for you.

Amit
January 24th, 2012, 01:18 PM
Fixed that for you.

:mech: Red Orchestra is for the demigods of gaming.


And what the fuck kind of propaganda is this shit?:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmnupRbdpoc

It's shit like that that makes kids grab their dads' guns and "play" Call of Duty in real life. I have to say, though, that last scene was pretty funny.

hobojoe
January 24th, 2012, 06:54 PM
2595

Why do people think this this game is still fun?

Donut
January 24th, 2012, 07:03 PM
the same reason so many people listen to "pop" music. in fact, i think referring to call of duty as the pop music of video games is a pretty fair evaluation.

Spartan094
January 24th, 2012, 07:05 PM
Why do people think this this game is still fun?
Camping, over powered piece of shit weapons, retarded kill streaks, retarded perks, retarded everything. The list can go one, like the tags down below for this thread, I feel up to adding more.

Warsaw
January 25th, 2012, 02:36 PM
You know, except for kill streaks, that list can be applied to Battlefield 3 just as well.

Amit
January 25th, 2012, 02:44 PM
You know, except for kill streaks, that list can be applied to Battlefield 3 just as well.

More than one severely unbalanced weapon and retarded customizations? Are you sure you don't want to rethink that?

Cortexian
January 25th, 2012, 03:40 PM
Pretty much everything in Battlefield 3 at least has a good counter.

RedBaron
January 25th, 2012, 04:00 PM
You can camp in Battlefield 3, and either actually benefit the game by defending a control point or not get any kills/points at all. The way conquest and rush is set up, there really is no reason for players to camp a single dark corner like in MW3. The dynamic nature of the game modes pretty much forces players not to camp, or at least I would imagine it to be very boring.

I guess you can camp for kills in team deathmatch, but really, who actually plays team deathmatch in BF3?

Warsaw
January 25th, 2012, 04:03 PM
Jets and helos don't have any REAL counters, except ignoring them. That's the best counter, because they are bloody useless anyways.

The Jackhammer (with FRAG rounds) and FAMAS are absurdly overpowered and abused by everybody. MW's equivalents are the UMP and the SCAR. Yes, they are used more than the M16, because they are one-hit wonders AND 100% automatic.

Like I always say, that's been my experience on the 360 (where MW3 reigns supreme). That's why I haven't touched the damn game in three weeks. I just don't want to play it. You might say that Modern Warfare is more popular because it went retarded before Battlefield did.

E: Plenty of people camp in BF in Conquest mode (my favourite mode, because people are more retarded in Rush). Metro is all about camping the corners, Kharg is all about camping the ridges and the tower, Caspian is about camping the rocks next to each flag, Damavand is about camping the boxes or the side passages, Bazaar is about camping the Alley, and Tehran is about seeing how many people you can get on top of the bridge. Really, the only map that isn't about camping is Noshahr Canals, because you can't. The closest you can get to camping there is abusing the helos, which are unkillable thanks to the automatic flares and double engineers. Fucking yay.

Amit
January 25th, 2012, 09:29 PM
You really need to spend more time playing the game before you draw conclusions like that.

How is there nothing to counter aircraft? The Mobile AA is boss at killing aircraft. And then you have the stingers and the laser-guided javelin missiles which almost always guarantees a kill. You say that aircraft are useless, but that's because you obviously haven't witnessed anyone actually using it properly. Aircraft, especially attack choppers, are pretty damn effective against ground targets. Also, there are no "automatic" flares in this game. The only aircraft that can be actively repaired by engineers are the transport choppers and those are hardly worth shooting down since all they do is transport troops and randoms almost never jump out of them over the objective, so they aren't a huge threat any ways. Anyways, two to three javelins will bring down a transport chopper easily even with 2 engineers repairing.

Pretty much anything with the FRAG rounds is OP, but that's pretty much it. The FAMAS is OP because the DICE devs accidentally added an incorrect value for the recoil reduction of the foregrip. They've already said that they will fix this.

Kharg Island does have its fair share of ridges to snipe from, but where else are you going to sniper from if not there? You can't add sniper rifles to the game and then give the players no places to utilize a range advantage. Also, I've never seen anyone use that stupid little tower on Kharg Island for camping. Maybe that shit happens on consoles, but it doesn't fly on PC. I must agree with Caspian Border and Metro, though. However, Caspian Border is more manageable since most snipers tend to stick to the Antenna or the RU base to snipe. Infantry can run around pretty freely without major risk of getting sniped.

How can you say people camp the Alleyway in Grand Bazaar? That's not camping, that's actively defending because the minute you leave that area the enemy just walks in from at least 2 different directions and sets up shop. Defending a capture point is not camping.

Donut
January 25th, 2012, 09:36 PM
metro is an awful fucking map anyway. anybody who's played it for more than 10 minutes on any game mode should know that. i havent played many games on davamond peak, but fuck that tunnel in all ways. the side passages are death traps. if youre not getting camped by people in them, youre getting camped by LMGs with bipods near the entrance.
but im gathering that engies can repair vehicles while inside them in bf3? i was pretty sure theres a reason you CANT do that in bad company 2.

side note, as an assault, i can have the 870mcs, some pistol (raffica or g18), and i can swap my med pack for the m27(?) shotgun that has 6 shots. my loadout allows me to have two shotguns and an automatic pistol. im not sure if that should please me or enrage me.

Pooky
January 25th, 2012, 10:06 PM
The Jackhammer (with FRAG rounds) and FAMAS are absurdly overpowered and abused by everybody. MW's equivalents are the UMP and the SCAR. Yes, they are used more than the M16, because they are one-hit wonders AND 100% automatic.

The M16 was only supremely dominant in CoD 4, because automatic weapons actually had recoil back then :downs:

It's still annoying in every CoD it appears in though.

Amit
January 25th, 2012, 10:46 PM
but im gathering that engies can repair vehicles while inside them in bf3? i was pretty sure theres a reason you CANT do that in bad company 2.

Nope, not like BF2142. There is HP regen after 15 seconds of not being damaged further, though, on normal servers.

Warsaw
January 25th, 2012, 10:47 PM
Pooky: Yeah, I don't trash MW4. It's superior to successors in most aspects. Then they realized that everybody wants rehash (now with moar RETARD!), and thus MW2 was born. Fuck the state of the industry.

Amit, I've spent a shitload of time playing BF3. I don't need to spend three years worth of time playing a game to draw some sound conclusions. I'm not drawing anything half-assed here. I have tons of unlocks, I generally do well in servers where I'm not getting spawn-raped because team mates were extra stupid, and I have spend a lot of that time playing with friends who are generally superior team mates to your average player. These are my conclusions after taking three steps back and looking at it as a game.

It's just a terrible game. It isn't as rewarding to play as its predecessors and it has design choices that make literally no sense at all. When did regenerating health encourage players to act as a team and use squad tactics? When did chunky menus with load times become acceptable, ever? How is vehicle disables remotely useful to the play when it still takes two more rockets to finish it off AND the vehicle can still traverse the gun while firing? How can they not know that a scout helicopter with automatic flares and two engineers repairing it is broken despite three stinger missiles hitting it in rapid succession?

Mobile AA is all good and well when they get close enough to get hit or when they aren't flying so low that you can't even see them, but it can't take them all out at once. Like I said, though, aircraft are useless so it isn't that big of a deal. I was just bringing the example up because someone said that there are counters to every thing, when that's not true. Before the patch, I could have said there was no counter to NIRV, but since NIRV is completely useless now (yeah, you fix something that's broken by breaking it another way), I can't. I can, however, say that there is no counter to somebody whoring a Jackhammer on Metro using Frag rounds because you don't live long enough to know where he is. You just explode and he moves on, increasing his 18:0 kill streak by another point. You just get lucky and kill him by accident, not because you were seeking him out and had the perfect gun to kill him with. Frag rounds are not OP in a pump action, as they often won't even kill on a hit, and the cycle time gives players plenty of opportunity to react.

I snipe from ground level. All the ridge campers on Heavy Metal would get demolished by me, running between C and B, in the middle of field. Plain as day. Sitting on ridges with an M82 is for MW players. Get your feet dirty, cap flags, and be useful. Camping the ridge is not useful and never has been. It could be in Rush, but they would all rather focus on the Attacker's spawn rather than cover the MCOM. To that end, I've never met a useful ridge-camping sniper in any Battlefield game. Ever.

As for Grand Bazaar, yes, it's defending. The problem is that the map was designed for camping, and encourages it. They camp B so hard that they forget to defend A and C, and I'm usually on the team that doesn't take the initiative to take them back and hold them. Now I'm stuck doing it all by myself. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Point is, that's not Battlefield. That's MW. In Battlefield, nobody should be able to solo and get away with it.

DICE has said they will fix many things. The only thing they've fixed on Xbox is the NIRV, and there it's completely unusable now. Flares have not been touched, weapon stats have not been touched (416 is still firing in bursts when it shouldn't), and I have no faith that they will be. And again, you can say "well there's the problem, you're on Xbox," but that doesn't excuse the game. I will just answer with "BC2 was great on all platforms, and so BF3 should also be." It's pretty, but it's not up to snuff where it actually counts.

E: Engineers can still repair from inside on BF3 Xbox. And it fucking blows.

Amit
January 26th, 2012, 12:27 PM
I still disagree with much of what you have said, but I know that nothing I say will dissuade you from your position. I think the issue lies in the differences between the console and PC versions. The XBOX version has obviously suffered the most neglect which had lead to the massive gameplay differences between the three platforms it's available on. I only play on 48-player and 64-player servers and without a doubt that greater number of players changes the gameplay radically, especially on maps like Grand Bazaar (just too many players to effectively camp). It seems that you have experienced one type of game and the rest of us have experienced another. Hopefully you'll be able to experience BF3 in a much better way once you get your new PC up and running.

Warsaw
January 26th, 2012, 12:39 PM
It's not about dissuading me, it's about us having totally different experiences because we are playing on two different platforms. I've acknowleged that in the past. The bottom line is that just because it's good on PC doesn't make it good on Xbox, which is what matters to me because that's what I have to work with. There is no excuse for not delivering a quality, polished, finished product across the board.



This isn't even really a debate, more like a comparison of BF 3 on console vs. BF3 on PC. If you spent $60 on a new game and found out that it was inferior to its predecessor in every way that matters on your platform of choice, you'd be pretty upset, too. I hope it does make up for itself on PC, we'll see, though.

Amit
January 26th, 2012, 01:02 PM
Well, I can agree to that. I guess I'm having trouble understanding your concern seeing as PC gamers have been shafted heavily for half a decade and I finally get to see the favour returned to the consoles. Since I'm going to take what you're saying about what happens on consoles as the truth, I sort of feel bad now since you reminded me how consistent BC2 was across most platforms. Quite honestly, though, I would not even care if the console versions dropped deead. BF was always about the PC experience anyways so I'll get over it. I cannot deny that you are completely right for saying that there's no excuse for not equalizing the three games properly. I sometimes wonder what the fuck DICE is doing assuming that EA isn't forcing them to shit out another game and/or DLC within the next 3 months. They have been inconsistent at best. I don't know how Daniel Matros can take his job seriously when he has nothing to communicate to the community when they have everything to communicate to the dev team.

Holy shit, this is the MW3 thread.

Warsaw
January 26th, 2012, 01:14 PM
I prefer PC, but I'm pretty agnostic. I hate console ports as much as the next guy, but BF3 is console native. Come on, DICE, throw us a bone.



This little discussion demonstrates why CoD continues to do better: it delivers exactly what is expected of it and it is a consistent experience wherever you play it.

Amit
January 26th, 2012, 02:11 PM
This little discussion demonstrates why CoD continues to do better: it delivers exactly what is expected of it and it is a consistent experience wherever you play it.

They mastered that back in 2007. Since then they haven't changed a damn thing. They don't take any risks.

Warsaw
January 26th, 2012, 03:03 PM
But nobody is expecting them to, at this point. You either like the CoD formula or you don't. Since Activision is making hand-over-fist the way it is, they can just tell the naysayers to fuck right off and play something else, because they're in the minority.

And that right there is why most of us don't like the CoD series any more. Being a modding community, new mechanics and pretty graphics get us excited. Rehashes just earn our scorn.

Amit
January 26th, 2012, 03:59 PM
Well when you put it that way...

Pooky
January 26th, 2012, 05:25 PM
You either like the CoD formula or you don't.

I liked the CoD formula up until 4. I haven't liked a single CoD since. MW2 was my single biggest disappointment in gaming, ever.

Warsaw
January 26th, 2012, 05:47 PM
Heh, that pretty much sums up my experience with Halo 2. Loved the first one so goddamn much, got to Part Deux, was assmad for the next 7, going on 8, years over all of the changes.

I only played *some* of the campaigns for CoD 2 and 3. They were alright, but they weren't my favourite type of game. I can't comment on the multiplayer.

What I do know is that before CoD 4, Battlefield was king of military multi-player shooters outside of Counter-Strike. One might surmise that DICE's success with a departure from WWII in BF2 is what inspired Infinity Ward to take a gamble by doing the same in CoD 4. If I remember, there were reports of Activision being a bit squeamish about leaving WWII for modern day.

Ifafudafi
January 26th, 2012, 06:22 PM
If I remember, there were reports of Activision being a bit squeamish about leaving WWII for modern day.

That's one way to put it

IW had to develop CoD4 in almost complete secrecy so that by the time they had to show off what they'd done the project would be too far along for the Activision execs to turn around. That's why World at War went back to WWII; Treyarch had already begun pre-production before they even knew what direction IW was going

Cruel irony becomes apparent when you notice that the game responsible for launching CoD's popularity into the stratosphere was the one where AV had the least involvement (except possibly the first maybe)

Amit
January 26th, 2012, 07:16 PM
IW had to develop CoD4 in almost complete secrecy so that by the time they had to show off what they'd done the project would be too far along for the Activision execs to turn around. That's why World at War went back to WWII; Treyarch had already begun pre-production before they even knew what direction IW was going


Call of Duty 4 was developed in secrecy until E3 2007, but it wasn't kept secret from Activision. The dev team approached Activision and voiced that they wanted to do a modern game, but they were met with scepticism. So Activision allowed them to develop the game, but they were very cautious with the information about this new game. So they let Treyarch start on World At War as a kind of backup if COD4 wasn't well received. Well I guess they worried for no reason.

TeeKup
January 26th, 2012, 07:17 PM
The game has its moments, but its rage inducing. Weapon balance is retarded, maps are mediocre. The maximum joy I get out of this is trolling the trolls. I haven't even unlocked the Striker or C4 yet, so when I do it will be amplified tenfold. Of course I'm just going to pick up BF3 before then anyway so whatever.

Sanctus
January 26th, 2012, 08:30 PM
THANK you. I have no one to play Co-op with now that you left...

Warsaw
January 27th, 2012, 02:39 AM
I actually enjoy BF3's co-op. It's broken on Xbox to always be at the hardest setting (I swear it is), but it's still fun.

As for MW3, I wish my brother hadn't sold his copy so I could've at least given the single player a run. It looked entertaining enough.

Amit
January 27th, 2012, 02:47 AM
Singleplayer was sort of fun. Hardly engaging, though. It made more sense than MW2, but it felt more retarded running around in a different part of the world every single level. It's like they have some fetish with making everyone outside of NATO an enemy combatant at some point.

Warsaw
January 27th, 2012, 10:45 AM
The part where you take control of the Russian drone tank had me laughing at the awesome, though.

Amit
February 1st, 2012, 06:52 PM
Article of the decade: http://games.ign.com/articles/121/1217539p1.html

(http://games.ign.com/articles/121/1217539p1.html)Best thing I've read in ages. The best part?:


Numerous studios worked on Modern Warfare 3. Multiple companies. Let that sink in. Creative powerhouses composed of some of the industry's greatest talent put their heads together to make...the same thing [as MW2].

hobojoe
February 2nd, 2012, 12:55 AM
^ This

Pooky
February 2nd, 2012, 07:40 PM
I don't subscribe to the philosophy of change for the sake of change. I'm perfectly happy playing more of the same, as long as the same is good.

Read: entire Mega Man series

Spartan094
February 2nd, 2012, 07:59 PM
[Activision talking to Infinity Ward and Treyarch]: "Remember, no innovation."

E: Check out them tags, holy moly

Amit
February 3rd, 2012, 12:21 AM
E: Check out them tags, holy moly

Holy shit lol. I almost spat out my drink when I saw the list. I have to read the tags more often.

annihilation
February 6th, 2012, 08:33 PM
Both Battlefield and Call of Duty are shit.

DarkHalo003
February 6th, 2012, 09:29 PM
Both Battlefield and Call of Duty are shit.
I really got this vibe from both. Battlefield is a lot less so than CoD, but it really didn't appeal to my tastes at all. Not sure why, but Halo has so far been the only FPS that's really made me come back for more than a month.

Spartan094
February 6th, 2012, 09:33 PM
I would have attempted to make fun of you but somebody already did this in the tags.

E: But seriously, I have not bought either BF3 or MW3, nor have I touched both its MP, SP, or anything at all. I know is $60 down the drain, found better uses by using money to buy real firearms, I don't rage at people and it's a good stress reliever.

Amit
February 7th, 2012, 12:22 AM
So you guys came into this thread about a video game for what reason? To tell us to go play real life instead? Well okay, fair enough, that's actually a grand idea.

TeeKup
February 7th, 2012, 12:51 AM
Meanwhile I'm close to my second service star for my Jets in BF3.

Spartan094
February 7th, 2012, 10:25 PM
So you guys came into this thread about a video game for what reason? To tell us to go play real life instead? Well okay, fair enough, that's actually a grand idea.
My thread, I run this bitch. hth I wouldn't say "you guys" since annihliation never said anything about RL, and I never ment to project my thoughts/opinions about this game or others.

Then again this is my thread I don't take too seriously considering the next COD game will be announced sometime soon or at E3.

Nero
February 7th, 2012, 11:14 PM
Meanwhile I'm close to my second service star for my Jets in BF3.

Hot damn, you play to much.

TeeKup
February 7th, 2012, 11:20 PM
Nah I'm just that good in the air.

Sanctus
February 7th, 2012, 11:34 PM
He really is. Anytime I've ever been on he opposite team and we're in jets I can never shoot the bastard down. It doesn't matter what we're flying, he ALWAYS out turns me. >:/

TeeKup
February 7th, 2012, 11:37 PM
I'M BETTER THAN YOU HAAAAWWWW.

Amit
February 8th, 2012, 12:27 AM
Simple fix. SOFLAM + Javelin.

TeeKup
February 8th, 2012, 12:36 AM
FUCK YOU.

Amit
February 8th, 2012, 01:50 AM
MUAHAHAHHA. Oh well, he'll need an accomplice to do it. Or do SOLFAMS persist through death too?

Cortexian
February 8th, 2012, 05:20 AM
Or do SOLFAMS persist through death too?
No.

I'm fast approaching my 9th jet service star. Nothing compared to this guy though:
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/SturdyWings/

IIRC he has 50+ jet service stars and 180+ hours in jets.

Spartan094
February 8th, 2012, 05:40 AM
There is to a point I will lock this thread so we can't make fun of this game. Go to the BF3 thread.

Cortexian
February 8th, 2012, 06:54 AM
I will unlock this thread so we can make fun of this game.

Amit
February 8th, 2012, 09:23 AM
And all who play it. I nag Pyong about playing MW2 and MW3 every couple months or so, but he still chooses to play bad games when almost any game is at his fingertips. It just doesn't make any sense :gonk:

Cortexian
February 8th, 2012, 10:59 AM
I always laugh when I see jcap playing MW3.

Amit
February 8th, 2012, 06:23 PM
I always laugh when I see jcap playing MW3.

WHAT? SACRILEGE!

TVTyrant
February 8th, 2012, 06:36 PM
tag: dreamcast was best

Lovin it.

Pooky
February 9th, 2012, 10:36 PM
41jKgp4IceI&fmt=18

dreamcast was best

TVTyrant
February 10th, 2012, 12:23 AM
Nope PS1

Spartan094
February 13th, 2012, 02:52 PM
If I could I would have plus repped you for that post Pooky, good memories I had with that game as a kid.


Nope PS1

Also errybody knows N64 was best, it had Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.

TVTyrant
February 13th, 2012, 03:04 PM
If I could I would have plus repped you for that post Pooky, good memories I had with that game as a kid.



Also errybody knows N64 was best, it had Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.
PS1 had FF7, Medal of Honor, Legends of Dragoon, Vagrant Story, The FF anthology collections, Metal Gear Solid, CastleVania, and Crash Bandicoot. PS1 will always be the greatest console.

Warsaw
February 13th, 2012, 03:12 PM
Goldeneye was terrible as a shooter. As a console shooter at the time it was good, but as a shooter in general it was terrible.

EagerYoungSpaceCadet
February 13th, 2012, 04:07 PM
PS1 had FF7, Medal of Honor, Legends of Dragoon, Vagrant Story, The FF anthology collections, Metal Gear Solid, CastleVania, and Crash Bandicoot. PS1 will always be the greatest console.Also, the best boot sound ever.
j-Py0DUvG7s

Amit
February 13th, 2012, 04:23 PM
I was going to use that as my Windows 7 bootup sound (for bootup you need to hack some files), but I went with the Windows 98 startup sound instead because I didn't want a long startup sound. The PS1 start up is so nostalgic for me. I never owned a PS1 so whenever I went to the cousins' house to play Spyro or Crash Bandicoot I would relish​ that sound.

Cortexian
February 13th, 2012, 06:09 PM
This thread: Everything not MW3.

I approve of this thread direction.

Donut
February 13th, 2012, 06:14 PM
wow. i had never heard the ps1 startup sound before now. thats like that sound you hear before a big movie starts in the theatre, but its right there, in your house.

Pooky
February 13th, 2012, 06:26 PM
Goldeneye was terrible as a shooter.

Um, no. It doesn't have to have ADS and dual analog controls to be a good game. At the time it was released Goldeneye was unlike any other shooter out there because it actually incorporated stealth and had objectives other than blowing everything up. I still think it's quite a bit more fun than most any shooter released in recent years.

TVTyrant
February 13th, 2012, 06:29 PM
wow. i had never heard the ps1 startup sound before now. thats like that sound you hear before a big movie starts in the theatre, but its right there, in your house.
yeah, its fucking AWESOME. That is why it r the greatest console evar.

Aside from the shitload of great RPGs and Platformers I mean.

Cortexian
February 13th, 2012, 06:39 PM
Um, no. It doesn't have to have ADS and dual analog controls to be a good game. At the time it was released Goldeneye was unlike any other shooter out there because it actually incorporated stealth and had objectives other than blowing everything up. I still think it's quite a bit more fun than most any shooter released in recent years.
This.

@People talking about PSOne; I don't recall ever playing a PlayStation exclusive game that interested me except for Katamari Damasi. That one game isn't enough to sway me from the N64 supremacy group.

Warsaw
February 13th, 2012, 08:37 PM
Um, no. It doesn't have to have ADS and dual analog controls to be a good game. At the time it was released Goldeneye was unlike any other shooter out there because it actually incorporated stealth and had objectives other than blowing everything up. I still think it's quite a bit more fun than most any shooter released in recent years.

To each his own. Quake had objectives other than blowing everything up. Even today, shooter objectives don't amount to much more than "Go to this position and press this button to proceed" or "grab this item and proceed to this location (this includes hostage rescues)." It's all in how you make it look.

nuttyyayap
February 13th, 2012, 08:38 PM
PS1 had Ace Combat as well :saddowns:
And Goldeneye was fun for what it's meant to be

Warsaw
February 13th, 2012, 08:43 PM
^ And that is something I can agree on. For what it is, it's fun. It was an attempt to bring shooters to the console, and it is a great first try. I still think Halo is the better game, but that's because it's much more refined, a benefit of coming four years later.

Amit
February 13th, 2012, 08:47 PM
OMG have you guys never played Bloody Roar 2, Eagle One: Harrier Attack, or World's Scariest Police Chases? I stayed up until 5 in the morning playing Eagle One sometimes when I stayed over at my cousins' house. SOOO good times.

Pooky
February 13th, 2012, 08:51 PM
To each his own. Quake had objectives other than blowing everything up. Even today, shooter objectives don't amount to much more than "Go to this position and press this button to proceed" or "grab this item and proceed to this location (this includes hostage rescues)." It's all in how you make it look.

Not if you're talking about Quake 1 it didn't, and Quake 2 came later. The point is, Goldeneye tried to be something more sophisticated than the shooters that came before it. In my book it succeeded. It's got just the right amount of 'spy' mixed in with the 'FUCK EVERYTHING'.

Warsaw
February 13th, 2012, 10:01 PM
Quake II came later the same year, too late for Goldeneye to have any influence on it. Quake I also had keycard collection, something that is decidedly not "blow everything up" in nature. Actually, most games were "reach the exit," not "blow everything up." I think you are confusing plot elements with play elements. Plot elements can make a play element seem like something it is not. It makes a simple fetch routine look like you are unlocking the door to the universe. Objectives, however, are not play elements, they are plot. I don't find plot to contribute to the fun-factor of a game, but immersion (I've been in immersive games that sucked, like Oblivion, and in non-immersive games that are fun, like UT). Yes, Goldeneye is more immersive than Quake. I, personally, wouldn't call it more fun than Quake or Quake II.

Point is, Goldeneye is not *OMG THE SHIT!* like it's made out to be.

Pooky
February 14th, 2012, 01:11 AM
Goldeneye to have any influence on it.

I never came remotely close to saying that anywhere.


Quake I also had keycard collection, something that is decidedly not "blow everything up" in nature.

Um, seriously? Keycard collection is not the same thing as 'blow up this computer or kill too many civilians and you fail the entire mission with no chance of recovery'. I'm getting the feeling from this that you really didn't play Goldeneye much at all. I suggest you go do so.

Donut
February 14th, 2012, 01:26 AM
pooky, i recall you saying that the glitches and exploits in metroid prime 1 were one of the major reasons its so popular and still played today. im pretty sure the same thing can be said for goldeneye, possibly moreso. people were, and still are crazy about tearing that game apart to find every little thing inside it.

actually, a while back i stumbled across a video of a guy who modded an entire mission into a rom dump of the game

Cortexian
February 14th, 2012, 02:30 AM
I'm pretty sure all the glitches and exploits are what make JK2 so popular as well.

Warsaw
February 14th, 2012, 11:31 AM
I never came remotely close to saying that anywhere.

You implied it. You said Goldeneye came first. That has absolutely no relevance unless it also served to influence the game you are comparing it to. In the case of Quake (I or II), it didn't. I should not have to spell this out for you.





Um, seriously? Keycard collection is not the same thing as 'blow up this computer or kill too many civilians and you fail the entire mission with no chance of recovery'. I'm getting the feeling from this that you really didn't play Goldeneye much at all. I suggest you go do so.

Button pressing also in Quake I. Besides, accidentally blowing something up and ending the game because of civilian casualties is literally no different than accidentally shooting the red barrel next to you and ending the game by killing yourself.

Like I said, plot vs. play mechanics. I suggest you take a step back and understand that concept.

Amit
February 14th, 2012, 03:37 PM
Let's all just face it. Pooky doesn't like new games. I don't really blame him.

Warsaw
February 14th, 2012, 05:14 PM
I don't either. Most are steaming piles of shit, and the half-decent ones don't measure up to the old in terms of fun.

Pooky
February 14th, 2012, 05:32 PM
You implied it.

No, I did not. I said that Quake 2 came afterwards in case you were referring to Quake 2, because Quake 2 did have somewhat more sophisticated mechanics.



Like I said, plot vs. play mechanics. I suggest you take a step back and understand that concept.

No, you're the one who's not understanding. Clearly you've barely played Goldeneye at all, and this isn't the first time you've tried to argue with me based on little to no actual knowledge of the game in question. Go play it, and tell me it's not more sophisticated than Quake.

Besides being one of the first games that proved shooters on a console could really work, Goldeneye was one of the first games to take a more realistic approach to FPS. It included things like location based damage and (albeit loose) representations of real life weapons which nobody else had done before. I suggest you take a step back and take a moment to actually know what you're talking about before starting another 10 page argument over an idiotic point of semantics.


Let's all just face it. Pooky doesn't like new games. I don't really blame him.

I like some of them. Mass Effect 2 is one of my favorite games ever. Just not the vast majority.


I'm pretty sure all the glitches and exploits are what make JK2 so popular as well.

It really depends on how you define exploit. The glitches are what give the game depth and longevity, because each one adds to the gameplay while taking away nothing. Every new glitch is a new tactic to use against your opponents, and there's literally no end to the strategies you can employ. The same can be said of a game like Super Metroid, which is still actively played by speedrunners today because there are so many things to discover. That's what happens when developers don't put a shitload of overbearing restrictions on their game.

Higuy
February 14th, 2012, 06:51 PM
No, I did not. I said that Quake 2 came afterwards in case you were referring to Quake 2, because Quake 2 did have somewhat more sophisticated mechanics.

Yeah, it also had a kick-ass soundtrack. WojopwjrsnY

Warsaw
February 14th, 2012, 07:12 PM
Pooky. Stop. You look like an idiot.

1. What you said implies that Goldeneye was somehow a precursor to Quake II. It came before, yes, but it had no bearing on its development as it was under way before Goldeneye even hit the shelves. Furthermore, Quake II came out only three months later. It was developed roughly during the same time as Goldeneye; you think those last three months were spent dreaming up the game mechanics and features? You brought up a comparison that basically has no meaning to this conversation-why bring Quake into this if not to imply that Goldeneye influenced it? Had Goldeneye not come along, we would have still ended up with Quake II just the same. This goes back to what I mentioned in the "PSA" thread: you, specifically you, are incapable of reading your own posts and deducing their actual meaning. You need to be able to put yourself into your audience's shoes and read it as they would. Proof-read for logic. Make connections to ideas within a conversation and understand them. You can't mash out responses and make an effective argument.

2. You clearly know diddly-squat about game design. Now you're bringing in location based damage and that's great because you're finally starting to talk about play elements rather than plot elements disguised as play elements...not that they really change how you play the game all that much because, say, a sniper rifle is still a one-shot kill and people instinctively aim for the head anyways when presented with a high-powered, scoped weapon. It does add an element of knowledge to be used by more experienced players in multiplayer, but then so do all of the crazy moves in Quake. Quake II also had damage "models" for NPCs. I'd call that an equivalent effect to location-based damage as far as advancement in features goes.

3. You are missing *my* point. I never called it out for not being innovative, which is essentially what you are accusing me of. Nothing I said even close to implied it. All I did was say that as a shooter, it wasn't that great. It lacked the thrill of racing through Quake II, getting your timing perfect in Halo, or having an engrossing environment like Half-Life (1 and 2). It didn't take the same amount of skill/practise as Counter-Strike and thus didn't grant you as much satisfaction when you consistently pull that 180-headshot with the Scout.

So before you reply, first get a grasp of English comprehension. Then, remove your rose-tinted goggles and go educate yourself on game design. Finally, stop engaging in debates where you have no basis for debating in the first place.

Practise what you preach.

Thanks.

:)

Higuy
February 14th, 2012, 07:33 PM
Don't argue about what games are better than each other in terms of combat mechanics, its mostly opinion when it comes that. Game developers develope what they want to develop and what they find fun. Most of the time, anyway (id hope)

Warsaw
February 14th, 2012, 07:40 PM
Precisely.

And fun is a matter of personal opinion. You can, however, increase the number of people that have fun with your game using proper challenge/reward systems for your target audience.

Pyong Kawaguchi
February 14th, 2012, 07:55 PM
Yeah, it also had a kick-ass soundtrack. WojopwjrsnY


Reminds me of the awesome in tribes 2.

Pooky
February 14th, 2012, 08:32 PM
1. What you said implies that Goldeneye was somehow a precursor to Quake II.

No. It. Does. Not.

Learn to fucking read. What I said was that IF you were referring to Quake 2 when you said 'QUAKE' as in the SERIES in general, then yes QUAKE 2 had somewhat more sophisticated mechanics AS OPPOSED TO QUAKE 1. However QUAKE 1 does NOT therefore GOLDENEYE is DIFFERENT from it IN THAT WAY.


2. You clearly know diddly-squat about game design.

No, you clearly fucking don't. You've never had one argument against me that wasn't purely semantic in nature.



3. You are missing *my* point. All I did was say that as a shooter, it wasn't that great.

This is precisely what I'm calling you out on. Whether it's great or not is a matter of opinion but it's definitely a success by any definition and had a strong influence on shooters to follow.



It didn't take the same amount of skill/practise as Counter-Strike and thus didn't grant you as much satisfaction when you consistently pull that 180-headshot with the Scout.

Give me a break. Stop playing on Agent. Do the time trials.



Then, remove your rose-tinted goggles and go educate yourself on game design.

Rose tinted goggles my fucking ass. Unlike you, I actually play older games on a regular basis. Remember how the main game I play online is 10 years old?

And no, I'm not going to spend a whole bunch of extra time proofreading my posts so retards can understand them better. See, posting on Modacity isn't actually the most important thing in my life. Learn some actual reading comprehension.

Warsaw
February 14th, 2012, 10:04 PM
Hi Pooky, thanks for replying. I'm glad you took the time to actually take my advice and I can see a clear improvement in your post quality. :)

1. You haven't called me out on anything. You started blathering on about implicit innovation, which has nothing to do with making a game great. MW3 is a great game, and it has no innovation. See? It's SALES. That's it. Sales, however, are driven by fun-factor. You and I may despise it, but millions of others love it. All I said was that Goldeneye wasn't a good shooter, but it was great as a console shooter. It really doesn't have any ups on the likes of Quake I or II that make it stand out and therefore, to me, it is sub-par (because Quake was the bar). Notice how all of its praises include references to being a console game? "The standard for multiplayer console combat." Yeah, there you go.

2. You think you know something about game design? Ha! Get out. Nothing you've ever said in any thread has suggested you know anything about it. Everything you've ever mentioned on the subject for any game in the entire history of these forums has never been more specific or technically inclined than "derp this is skill and this isn't. JK2 has no abusive mechanics. Look at me, I'm an armchair expert on everything vidjagames because I'm a close-minded nostalgia-fag who doesn't actually understand why old games are fun."
Studying it has not only been a hobby of mine for many years, but it's also my college major. Go ahead, try and tell me specifically what mechanics specifically made Goldeneye fun to you and tell me how all of these elements work together to make the package. Now, I haven't studied Gpldeneye too terribly hard because it wasn't in my list of "great games to come back to," but of the ones that have, I know quite a bit about. Seriously, ask me why Halo: Combat Evolved is the mechanically superior game to Halo Reach and I can tell you in explicit detail down to damage ratios and magazine depletion rates. Don't believe me? Ask Iffafudafi, Boba, Masterz, or teh_lag, to name a few who know.

3. You have absolutely no idea what games I play regularly. You want to know what games I continuously return to and play more often than any other? Here' I'll list them for Your Highness's viewing pleasure: Battlezone I (1998), first off - a truly innovative game that your precious JK2 and Goldeneye have nothing on; Missile Command; Wing Commander III; 3D Space Cadet Pinball; Dune 2000; Dark Reign; Quake II; Heavy Gear; IL-2; Battlezone II; F-Zero; Golden Sun; Wipeout; Perfect Dark. Since I'm not an asshole like you, I'm not going to assume you aren't familiar with those titles. I will, however, be pleasantly surprised if you've played half of them to any appreciable degree, mostly because it's hard to run across people raised on these classic PC titles rather than the console classics.

Oh, and remember how Halo is also 11 years old? Remember how Counter-Strike is 14 years old? Remember how Battlezone I is 14 years old? Remember how all of the just-now-mentioned are all online-capable? Yup, I'm the one on the pedestal. Golly jee, I guess I'll step down then.

4. I'm not the one with the rose-goggles. I merely compare feature to feature, mechanic to mechanic, and my experiences with each title in question. If I had no experience, I wouldn't comment. That's why I never say anything about games such as Metroid series, Zelda, Megaman, Sonic, Mech Warrior, etc. I have no right to, because I haven't played them sufficiently to draw conclusions.

5.

Not if you're talking about Quake 1 it didn't, and Quake 2 came later. The point is, Goldeneye tried to be something more sophisticated than the shooters that came before it. In my book it succeeded. It's got just the right amount of 'spy' mixed in with the 'FUCK EVERYTHING'.

And I'm telling you implicitly that Quake I is not really much different from Quake II in play mechanics. Poor wording on my part there, I'll give you that (hey look, that's more than you already!). You should already know this, after spouting off how fantastically well-versed you are in old games. They both require you to navigate a labyrinth level and they both employ the same basic mechanics - Quake II is just fancier with sky-boxes, hardware-accelerated-video support out of the box, damage decals, and non-hostile NPC. None of these affect actual gameplay and therefore your point is still irrelevant.

6. You consistently talk down to everyone on these forums when it concerns titles you are either married to or abhor, as if their experiences are made-up and don't exist. I at least acknowledge them, and then ask why they feel that way. I didn't even start this debate (again), you did. I had hoped the "to each his own" would be enough of a marker for you to pick up on and let an opinion be an opinion after I corrected you on the confusion between an "objective" and a "play mechanic," but no, you had to try and get on top. Oh no, Pooky has been corrected! THE WORLD IS GOING TO END WHAT EVER AM I GOING TO DO I MUST RESPOND TO REPAIR MY REPUTATION (lol, what reputation?) AND SMITE THIS FAGGOT! Oh, and that was after you were being an ignoramus and accusing me of thinking ADS and dual analogue sticks are what make a great game, by the way, which is completely idiotic to do because *this guy* has played most of his shooters on the PC, struggled with controllers, and yet persevered and found merit in console shooters such as Halo and Goldeneye. Hell, I even own JK2 on Xbox as well as PC (had it on Xbox first).

7. I clearly have a better grasp of English comprehension than you do. You can't connect two related ideas properly and neither can you consistently form a statement that says what you want it to. You demonstrate a consistent unwillingness to listen to opposition, you lack the basic meta-cognitive abilities to improve your writing, and you expect people to just let it slide. No, Modacity isn't the most important thing in the world, but if you can't say something properly, then don't say it at all. It's scum like you that are emblematic of what's wrong with the world: "I don't want to put effort in because it's not important." Who are you to say it's not important? Who knows, this very conversation could be world-changing! We don't know. There is a high probability that this is stupid and trivial, but we are not certain. There was also a high-probability that a hot-air balloon man wouldn't fly at one point and that any such talk was crazy. Look at us now.

8. If this isn't so important to you, why are you bothering? Why do you bother at all? If I'm retarded, what does that make you? Straight-up stupid?

9. Keep on swearing every three words. It doesn't work for Ross, and he usually has more credibility in the topics that he talks about than you do in anything you talk about...except your Corvette. :downs:

10. We are destined to do this forever because...you're just too much fun. :lmao:

Champ
February 14th, 2012, 10:14 PM
You really went the extra mile there...you care too much about this argument.

Warsaw
February 14th, 2012, 10:18 PM
I care about getting his goat, actually. It's funny to watch him, specifically him, squirm. I don't think he's ever really been challenged (according to his screwy-logic, this isn't being challenged) or called-out on his bullshit before. He's worse than Freelancer with the "talking out the ass" business.

Also, spiritual payback because he's one of those in-game trolls (by his own gleeful admission), having fun at other players' expense.

Donut
February 14th, 2012, 10:29 PM
perfect dark is like goldeneye 2. ive never understood why people think goldeneye is so much better. actually, of anybody ive talked to about it, nobody has even heard of perfect dark. that game is fantastic. an excellent example of what a sequel should be.

also, <3 golden sun and f-zero. golden sun is the reason i got into game design.


Don't argue about what games are better than each other in terms of combat mechanics, its mostly opinion when it comes that. Game developers develope what they want to develop and what they find fun. Most of the time, anyway (id hope)
also, whatever will get them moneys. seems that way nowadays anyway.

Spartan094
February 14th, 2012, 10:35 PM
Nice argument going on there.

If people never heard of Perfect Dark I swear some people can be retarded, it was so fun and I had fun playing with it with my sisters as a kid.

Yes I was exposed to Mature games as young as 5 and been playing them since but I never went crazy and caused violence, I was smart enough at a young age in that killing people and animals was wrong unless it was done for self-dense and other meaniful reasons.

Also what is Modern Welfare 3, never heard such a game.

Donut
February 14th, 2012, 10:40 PM
Nice argument going on there.
Also what is Modern Welfare 3, never heard such a game.
In all seriousness, "Mall of duty: Black cops" sounds like it would be ridiculously hilarious.

Pooky
February 15th, 2012, 05:26 AM
:words:

Wow, what Champ said. Unfortunately I am just a working man, not a college educated Internet Warrior™ like yourself. The stunning ignorance from which you make your arguments about Goldeneye (and JK2) should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about those games though. I'm really not interested in taking the time to try to reply to all that, so I'll just give you a "Umadbro?" And leave it at that.


perfect dark is like goldeneye 2. ive never understood why people think goldeneye is so much better. actually, of anybody ive talked to about it, nobody has even heard of perfect dark. that game is fantastic. an excellent example of what a sequel should be.

also, <3 golden sun and f-zero. golden sun is the reason i got into game design.


also, whatever will get them moneys. seems that way nowadays anyway.


Nice argument going on there.

If people never heard of Perfect Dark I swear some people can be retarded, it was so fun and I had fun playing with it with my sisters as a kid.

Yes I was exposed to Mature games as young as 5 and been playing them since but I never went crazy and caused violence, I was smart enough at a young age in that killing people and animals was wrong unless it was done for self-dense and other meaniful reasons.

Also what is Modern Welfare 3, never heard such a game.

Perfect dark is okay but it doesn't have 007 in it :saddowns:

=sw=warlord
February 15th, 2012, 07:16 AM
The only reason Golden eye really sticks out to anyone is because it was one of the few console shooters which weren't completely shit at the time and had a somewhat useful control system on a gamepad which was a total abomination and should never be replicated.
Golden eye wasn't a great game but when you compare a turd to a splatter of diarrhea the turd is likely to be praised for at least having some sort of integrity.

There, Said what no one else was going to say.
Deal with it.

El Lobo
February 15th, 2012, 07:49 AM
You really went the extra mile there...you care too much about this argument. Champ?

Champ
February 15th, 2012, 11:30 AM
Champ?
Lobo? Where have you been all my life?

DarkHalo003
February 15th, 2012, 12:28 PM
@Warsaw:

There is no such logic in saying Pooky has poor game design views. In your opinion he does, but that doesn't mean he does. He has an older view of game design, one that ends upon the 2004 era of gaming. I don't want to say it's retro, but it starts there and ends around 2004. This is merely form what I've observed based on the games Pooky likes. Now, it goes without saying he loves to assert his opinions on game design, maybe to a reckless extent. I don't need to tell you what you like to play though, Warsaw, so I'll move forward with the premise I am trying to relay.

I, on the other hand, have a different gaming design ideology. I'm all about open-spaces and a "do anything anywhere" kind of gaming philosophy (Hence why JRPG's, RPG's, and the expansiveness of the Halo Universe in general earn my favor). As long as a game gives you spaces to go and move in that are interesting and aren't all about attacking an enemy, then I'm usually okay with it (hence why HL2 and Republic Commando don't exactly earn my favor). However, I'm also heavy on pleasing gameplay mechanics.

@Both:
Here is the point now: Under any circumstance when a game is originally crafted, even when there are sequels, don't you dare compare any game to another game. A preference is one thing, but through constant critique and playing enough games of the same kind, I feel I can vouch that comparing games to other games leads to a terribly ignorant outlook. With that said, you have (both) played a great many games. You compare your design philosophies based off of what you play, which in case are two entirely different flavors which I will dub as Diverse-Archaic and Linear-Tactic (decide which is yours). So far you two have asserted the supremacy of your designs as opinions. Now, given what I've said, explain the logic in how either one of you have superior game designs compared to the other? Factually, not on bias, explain to me how one is better than the other.

If you find neither of you can, then you'll understand how pointless this argument is. And with that, CoDMW2 sucks.

Spartan094
February 15th, 2012, 12:31 PM
Dah no more arguing people!

TVTyrant
February 15th, 2012, 03:41 PM
The only reason Golden eye really sticks out to anyone is because it was one of the few console shooters which weren't completely shit at the time and had a somewhat useful control system on a gamepad which was a total abomination and should never be replicated.
Golden eye wasn't a great game but when you compare a turd to a splatter of diarrhea the turd is likely to be praised for at least having some sort of integrity.

There, Said what no one else was going to say.
Deal with it.
You know I think its hot when people say things others aren't manly enough to say :allears:

Warsaw
February 15th, 2012, 04:19 PM
"Deal with it" is the best way to end any discussion when the truth is spoken. +Rep!


Also, Batman.

Deal with it.

:-3

TVTyrant
February 16th, 2012, 11:22 PM
"Deal with it" is the best way to end any discussion when the truth is spoken. +Rep!


Also, Batman.

Deal with it.

:-3
Arkham City was the game of the year. Anyone who disagrees didn't play it.

Also, parrots:
:parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::p arrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::par rot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parro t::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot: :parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::p arrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::par rot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parro t::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot: :parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::p arrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::par rot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parro t::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot: :parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::p arrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::par rot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parro t::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot: :parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::p arrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::par rot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parro t::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot: :parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::p arrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::par rot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parro t::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot: :parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::p arrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::par rot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parro t::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot: :parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot::parrot:

ICEE
February 19th, 2012, 02:25 PM
Yeah, it also had a kick-ass soundtrack. WojopwjrsnY

oh god nostalgia. Quake 2 was my first game ever.

ODX
February 19th, 2012, 03:22 PM
So after playing the free weekend on Steam, I figured out that there are really only two major improvements to this game that I really cared about:
-Massive improvement to the killstreaks. I fucking love being a support guy and hurray for the Support package!
-Guns have noticeable recoil and actually feel a lot better now (coupled with the beefier weapon sounds)

Other than that, same old addictive (yet getting to be boring now) Call of Duty.

Oh, and I love how the graphics suck even more balls now in the MP. Honestly, there's noticeable pop-in now which I don't ever remember being present in games prior.

Donut
February 19th, 2012, 03:54 PM
i dl'ed it for the free weekend too. first thing that happened was a bunch of assholes making fun of me for being a free player. i went 30 something and like, 7 that game. destroyed all of them. next game, same thing.

that went on until one game with these two wall hackers running and jumping around corners with the pp19 spraying everything as if there was no iron sight. thats when i remembered what game i was playing and uninstalled it.

game is so fucking easy after bad company though.

Warsaw
February 19th, 2012, 04:01 PM
^ Pretty much. Bad Company 2 struck the perfect balance between team and rogue play as well as having a good learning curve and not an overbearing one.

Anybody can jump into Modern Warfare and do well, it's just that simple. That's also why it sells so well.

Pooky
February 20th, 2012, 07:42 PM
There, Said what no one else was going to say.
Deal with it.

I strongly disagree. But everyone's entitled to their own dumb opinion I guess.

By the way, what does my car have to do with anything here?

=sw=warlord
February 21st, 2012, 06:48 AM
I strongly disagree. But everyone's entitled to their own dumb opinion I guess.

By the way, what does my car have to do with anything here?
And there's that classic condescending attitude again.
Instead of calling opinions that doesn't align with yours dumb, how about you elaborate on why you feel otherwise.
The N64 controller was an abomination, there's very few who will disagree on that, i'm assuming your one so I want to know why you feel otherwise.

El Lobo
February 21st, 2012, 07:37 AM
You two just can't get along.

Pooky
February 21st, 2012, 07:43 PM
And there's that classic condescending attitude again.

http://i.imgur.com/eqReB.jpg


The N64 controller was an abomination, there's very few who will disagree on that, i'm assuming your one so I want to know why you feel otherwise.

Oh it is, to be sure. I just disagree that Goldeneye wasn't a good game on its own merits.

e: for what it's worth, I do actually apologize for calling your opinion dumb. That was uncalled for.

TVTyrant
February 21st, 2012, 11:15 PM
http://i.imgur.com/eqReB.jpg



Oh it is, to be sure. I just disagree that Goldeneye wasn't a good game on its own merits.

e: for what it's worth, I do actually apologize for calling your opinion dumb. That was uncalled for.
http://i.imgur.com/1ANkY.jpg

Pooky
February 21st, 2012, 11:21 PM
http://i.imgur.com/adeRy.png

repost fehlure

TVTyrant
February 21st, 2012, 11:23 PM
repost fuhrer
FTFY

Spartan094
February 21st, 2012, 11:44 PM
There's a snake in my boot....

Nope, Chuck Molesta

Kornman00
April 4th, 2012, 08:41 AM
So there's this MW3 protest being planned (http://www.ingame.msnbc.msn.com/technology/ingame/modern-warfare-3-players-planning-protest-643450)...on April 20th. Probably could have picked a better date.

sAozpepj8hw

lol, "Save COD". Poor COD schmucks. Maybe next time the COD community won't (pre)order another flaming turd directly to their doorstep! You only have yourselves to blame.

Amit
April 4th, 2012, 09:19 AM
Where was this when MW2 came out?

DarkHalo003
April 4th, 2012, 12:15 PM
You know how to save the CoD franchise? Pick up a shovel, dig a 6ft hole, and bury it.

Cortexian
April 4th, 2012, 01:26 PM
I will be participating in that movement.

Wait I've been participating in that movement since forever. I haven't even played MW3 yet.

Pooky
April 4th, 2012, 05:45 PM
Where was this when MW2 came out?

http://i.imgur.com/fkhiJ.jpg

TVTyrant
April 4th, 2012, 05:48 PM
^a classic

Kornman00
April 5th, 2012, 03:19 PM
^a classic
Unlike the franchise

:mech2:

Cortexian
April 6th, 2012, 01:14 AM
:downsrim:

t3h m00kz
April 10th, 2012, 03:02 AM
>playing any IW COD games past mw1

>mfw

<<<

TVTyrant
April 10th, 2012, 11:35 AM
>playing any IW COD games past mw1

>mfw

<<<
cock of dooty 4?

DarkHalo003
April 10th, 2012, 01:33 PM
2747

TVTyrant
April 10th, 2012, 02:37 PM
2747
lold so hard that I busted

Amit
April 11th, 2012, 02:04 AM
I don't understand. What was bad about COD4?

t3h m00kz
April 11th, 2012, 02:07 AM
wasn't nothin' wrong with that shit. probably the best one in the series

haven't played enough black ops... :/

Pooky
April 11th, 2012, 05:33 AM
I don't understand. What was bad about COD4?

Even I don't have any complaints about that game. Aside from a few minor glitches and balance issues in the MP, it was absolutely perfect.


haven't played enough black ops... :/

Black Ops MP made a good effort but failed due to some of the most hilariously bad map design ever seen in gaming.

JackalStomper
April 11th, 2012, 06:44 AM
I don't understand. What was bad about COD4?

Call of Grenades: Modern Grenade Combat

Amit
April 11th, 2012, 12:25 PM
Call of Grenades: Modern Grenade Combat

If you played with more than 26 people on most maps, you went looking for this.

TVTyrant
April 11th, 2012, 12:28 PM
I don't understand. What was bad about COD4?
Arby N Da Chief back in the day made some jokes about it lol

Pooky
April 11th, 2012, 08:39 PM
Call of Grenades: Modern Grenade Combat

Any player count higher than 16 is dumb and bad.

60 player CoD 4 servers are an abomination.

Spartan094
April 15th, 2012, 05:37 PM
Enjoy some new tags at the bottom.

Also why can't I change the title of this thread, its my thread dammit.

Also CoD4 was best CoD.

TVTyrant
April 15th, 2012, 07:45 PM
Any player count higher than 16 is dumb and bad.

60 player CoD 4 servers are an abomination.
I like 32 a lot in CS

Not a big fan of it in most other games though.

Pooky
April 16th, 2012, 08:02 PM
I like 32 a lot in CS

Not a big fan of it in most other games though.

Well yeah but I'm just talking about CoD 4 here <_>

ODX
May 11th, 2012, 02:57 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA HHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH

Seriously, you've got to watch this shit. Hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jVSMtEktrs&amp;feature=g-u-u

Ifafudafi
May 11th, 2012, 04:08 PM
"Most ambitious DLC in Call of Duty history"

well that's probably true at least

I wonder if the guys talking in the video actually believe what they're reciting from the script or if they're just as disillusioned as the rest of us. I really feel sorry for Raven, man

=sw=warlord
May 11th, 2012, 04:23 PM
You know the worst bit?
This is going to sell like hot cakes in a bakery.

DarkHalo003
May 11th, 2012, 04:26 PM
The only good thing I saw is that it promotes cooperation with your teammate. Regardless, the gameplay is still linear and lacking quality. None of the gameplay vids in that video were worth a shit. In fact, it's for 2v2, so you should be working with your teammate regardless. In other words, they dressed up the same gameplay. CoDception. What will they think of next? On second thought, don't answer that last question.

=sw=warlord
May 11th, 2012, 04:34 PM
The best thing to come out of Call of Duty is Nazi Zombies.

DarkHalo003
May 11th, 2012, 04:38 PM
The best thing to come out of Call of Duty is Nazi Zombies.
This much is true. Of course, how difficult is it to create a Zombie-shootemup? The environments are decently done though.

Kornman00
May 11th, 2012, 08:39 PM
The only good thing I saw is that it promotes cooperation with your teammate.
Winning promotes cooperation with your teammate. But that hasn't stopped millions of fucking schmuck players from being uncooperative assholes. This won't either. It'll only just reduce the chances of you getting matched up with a said asshole.

DarkHalo003
May 11th, 2012, 08:49 PM
Winning promotes cooperation with your teammate. But that hasn't stopped millions of fucking schmuck players from being uncooperative assholes. This won't either. It'll only just reduce the chances of you getting matched up with a said asshole.
Which makes any efforts to make CoD seem better fail miserably. :)

JackalStomper
May 12th, 2012, 06:18 AM
ok guys time to OWN this shit these nooblords won't stand a chance against my skilz teammates fuk that man they just slow down my 360 suicides qUiCKsc0pEs gotta go lone WOLF up in this bitch cant w8 to make my next montage

Higuy
May 12th, 2012, 06:54 AM
@dd m3 guiz we gun rape n00b a$$: 12345xXxH3@D$H01xXx54321